18 comments on a thread about what gyp marriage is and I was hoping there would be some decent MGTOW discussion. Nope, it's just Imp and Antonio going at it again.
Marriage is always valuable, but our government-backed system is a fucking horror show. Whether it's Family Court's horrific jurisprudence, the activism institutionalized into the system by the Duluth Model, or the fact that divorce and custody attorney's almost always seek to profit off of the destruction of the family; the state is an abomination that is destroying families. The decades of conservatives in family court have done nothing, and never will, because you can't legislate morality. People either embrace morality, or they don't. If you try to legislate it, you get Leftist subversion which uses that rationalization to push their agenda.
However, non-state-sanctioned marriage, let us call this "pair bonding" is wildly useful. When done PROPERLY, it means that a man's needs can be fulfilled by a woman so that he can be repaired and rejuvenated in order to maximize his agency for the development of a family. A woman's needs can be maximized with femininity by being his animus, and helping to render aesthetics into his world which do all of that rejuvenation, and it helps him navigate social environments to foster a community, protect his social status, and create not only a family with children; but a large family (with grand-children and a clan).
In the immediate moment, you cut expenses, maximize his agency, while the wife keeps him constantly pushing the limits of his responsibility and agency. Allowing him to be happier and more fulfilled.
This is why pair-bonding basically always exists in every civilization. The benefits of men and women compartmentalizing into masculine and feminine, and then building a family, outweigh any benefits you could have as single.
Now, the state's intrusion into families has only hurt them so far. What this means is that men and women will need to basically force the culture to change in local communities one family unit at a time. This, unfortunately, means that men will have to be at their strongest and most selective. Men's agency means that women will actually be more willing to adapt themselves to men's needs... but that means he has to be already: very dominant, very mature, very stoic, and very independent. Literally: strong men create good times. What we have now are not just weak men, but 3-5 generations of weak men, so that men barely know what masculinity is (let alone stoicism), and even their parents can't tell them. So, there's no chance any woman will know beyond her own emotional responses that are ingrained in her psyche.
Men's Rights, unfortunately, is entirely the wrong solution here. Appealing to the government for institutional corrections is wishful thinking within a Leftist framework. The government's support system needs to be abandoned altogether. A strong man with agency doesn't need a social safety net because he builds his own. No, it's not easy, in fact it's going to be brutal for us because nobody really knows how to do it. It means that men need to treat themselves with: rigorous discipline, controlled aggression, dominant personalities, and a sense of uncompromising stoicism; all in becoming socially adept, financially independent, and physically fit. Moreover, and I know this part will be odd, we need to stop having sex with anyone that isn't going to be serious. No lose women anymore as a status symbol. Each woman you fuck and then pass on is a woman who has just experienced a failed relationship. Each time she has a failed relationship, she becomes more resentful. Eventually, she will become a resentment-mongering relationship suicide bomber that you are training to detonate on the rest of us.
Stop that right now.
Yes, women can drag you to court, but that's kind of the point: you're never going to chose a woman who would consider it. Women can't lower their standards. They have a biologically imperative to marry up. And because of institutional narcissism, they want to marry way up. What this means is that not only are you going to need to marry down, you need to marry way down. Stop aiming for 7-8's. If you are a 7 or an 8, you aim for a 4 or a 5 that already thinks that they are lucky to be with you and are their knight in shining armor. You have to demonstrate yourself as literally that. The strong, dominant, wealthy, hero that is going to pull this 4 out of the feminist oubliette of insecurity and competition; an into a literal patriarchy, where she will already willingly choose to be submissive because she clearly fucking lucked out. If she's willing to improve herself with the security and stability that you provide, then she's the one you've got to go with. I'm not saying whores or broken people, but women who are low status who knows that her greatest break in her life isn't her career, but is her husband that her whole friend group is furiously jealous of. The more upset her friends are that you won't date them, and they don't see what you see in her, the better.
How about no. You're starting with a faulty premise already.
but our government-backed system is a fucking horror show. Whether it's Family Court's horrific jurisprudence, the activism institutionalized into the system by the Duluth Model, or the fact that divorce and custody attorney's almost always seek to profit off of the destruction of the family;
All of these things were widely supported and pushed for by women. They are more part of women's nature than the nature of the state.
it means that a man's needs can be fulfilled by a woman so that he can be repaired and rejuvenated in order to maximize his agency for the development of a family.
Repaired and rejuvenated? Are you selling me some kind of anti-aging cream? This whole paragraph sounds like a snake oil sales pitch, which...in a way it kind of is.
immediate moment, you cut expenses.
Not even close to true. In the modern era, it would be far cheaper to have a machine do the tasks associated with a housewife.
This is why pair-bonding basically always exists in every civilization. The benefits of men and women compartmentalizing into masculine and feminine, and then building a family, outweigh any benefits you could have as single.
If you can't find a poor sap to be stuck with the woman's endless demands, society in general has to provide. That's the real reason.
Pair bonding is bullshit, evolutionary biology shows that women were never meant to be loyal.
Men's Rights, unfortunately, is entirely the wrong solution here. Appealing to the government for institutional corrections is wishful thinking within a Leftist framework.
You're right, but for the wrong reasons. Men's Rights will never succeed because women don't think we deserve them.
The government's support system needs to be abandoned altogether. A strong man with agency doesn't need a social safety net because he builds his own.
That's fine, but we pull women's protections away too, especially all the gender quotas, ESG funds and every other cheat they've used to get ahead of where their actual value would put them.
No, it's not easy, in fact it's going to be brutal for us because nobody really knows how to do it. It means that men need to treat themselves with: rigorous discipline, controlled aggression, dominant personalities, and a sense of uncompromising stoicism; all in becoming socially adept, financially independent, and physically fit.
I've got most of that, but I don't want women anywhere near me. I have a life to preserve.
Moreover, and I know this part will be odd, we need to stop having sex with anyone that isn't going to be serious. No lose women anymore as a status symbol.
So, basically your plan is to do what the tradcucks always try to do, limit sexual outlets until your body pumps you full of enough chemicals to consider being stuck with a woman for the rest of your life.
Each woman you fuck and then pass on is a woman who has just experienced a failed relationship. Each time she has a failed relationship, she becomes more resentful.
Nope. That's them being shown their actual value.
What this means is that not only are you going to need to marry down, you need to marry way down. Stop aiming for 7-8's. If you are a 7 or an 8, you aim for a 4 or a 5 that already thinks that they are lucky to be with you and are their knight in shining armor.
Doesn't work, people suggested this before. Women's egos are massively out of any proportion and you can go down to 1s and still have the same problem. The whole culture of our society told them they are superior and they genuinely believe it.
You've misdiagnosed the problem as men going for women they can't have - women in general have a superiority belief that can't be shaken.
18 comments on a thread about what gyp marriage is and I was hoping there would be some decent MGTOW discussion. Nope, it's just Imp and Antonio going at it again.
Look's it's only 3 hours.
How about this:
Marriage is always valuable, but our government-backed system is a fucking horror show. Whether it's Family Court's horrific jurisprudence, the activism institutionalized into the system by the Duluth Model, or the fact that divorce and custody attorney's almost always seek to profit off of the destruction of the family; the state is an abomination that is destroying families. The decades of conservatives in family court have done nothing, and never will, because you can't legislate morality. People either embrace morality, or they don't. If you try to legislate it, you get Leftist subversion which uses that rationalization to push their agenda.
However, non-state-sanctioned marriage, let us call this "pair bonding" is wildly useful. When done PROPERLY, it means that a man's needs can be fulfilled by a woman so that he can be repaired and rejuvenated in order to maximize his agency for the development of a family. A woman's needs can be maximized with femininity by being his animus, and helping to render aesthetics into his world which do all of that rejuvenation, and it helps him navigate social environments to foster a community, protect his social status, and create not only a family with children; but a large family (with grand-children and a clan).
In the immediate moment, you cut expenses, maximize his agency, while the wife keeps him constantly pushing the limits of his responsibility and agency. Allowing him to be happier and more fulfilled.
This is why pair-bonding basically always exists in every civilization. The benefits of men and women compartmentalizing into masculine and feminine, and then building a family, outweigh any benefits you could have as single.
Now, the state's intrusion into families has only hurt them so far. What this means is that men and women will need to basically force the culture to change in local communities one family unit at a time. This, unfortunately, means that men will have to be at their strongest and most selective. Men's agency means that women will actually be more willing to adapt themselves to men's needs... but that means he has to be already: very dominant, very mature, very stoic, and very independent. Literally: strong men create good times. What we have now are not just weak men, but 3-5 generations of weak men, so that men barely know what masculinity is (let alone stoicism), and even their parents can't tell them. So, there's no chance any woman will know beyond her own emotional responses that are ingrained in her psyche.
Men's Rights, unfortunately, is entirely the wrong solution here. Appealing to the government for institutional corrections is wishful thinking within a Leftist framework. The government's support system needs to be abandoned altogether. A strong man with agency doesn't need a social safety net because he builds his own. No, it's not easy, in fact it's going to be brutal for us because nobody really knows how to do it. It means that men need to treat themselves with: rigorous discipline, controlled aggression, dominant personalities, and a sense of uncompromising stoicism; all in becoming socially adept, financially independent, and physically fit. Moreover, and I know this part will be odd, we need to stop having sex with anyone that isn't going to be serious. No lose women anymore as a status symbol. Each woman you fuck and then pass on is a woman who has just experienced a failed relationship. Each time she has a failed relationship, she becomes more resentful. Eventually, she will become a resentment-mongering relationship suicide bomber that you are training to detonate on the rest of us.
Stop that right now.
Yes, women can drag you to court, but that's kind of the point: you're never going to chose a woman who would consider it. Women can't lower their standards. They have a biologically imperative to marry up. And because of institutional narcissism, they want to marry way up. What this means is that not only are you going to need to marry down, you need to marry way down. Stop aiming for 7-8's. If you are a 7 or an 8, you aim for a 4 or a 5 that already thinks that they are lucky to be with you and are their knight in shining armor. You have to demonstrate yourself as literally that. The strong, dominant, wealthy, hero that is going to pull this 4 out of the feminist oubliette of insecurity and competition; an into a literal patriarchy, where she will already willingly choose to be submissive because she clearly fucking lucked out. If she's willing to improve herself with the security and stability that you provide, then she's the one you've got to go with. I'm not saying whores or broken people, but women who are low status who knows that her greatest break in her life isn't her career, but is her husband that her whole friend group is furiously jealous of. The more upset her friends are that you won't date them, and they don't see what you see in her, the better.
Or in other words: if you want to be happy for the rest of your life, never make a pretty woman your wife. From my personal point of view, pick an ugly woman to marry you. A pretty woman makes her husband look small, and very often causes his downfall. As soon as he marries her, then she starts to do the things that will break his heart. But if you make an ugly woman your wife, you'll be happy for the rest of your life. An ugly woman cooks meals on time, and she'll give you piece of mind.
You'll also save western civilization. I hope that helped.
How about no. You're starting with a faulty premise already.
All of these things were widely supported and pushed for by women. They are more part of women's nature than the nature of the state.
Repaired and rejuvenated? Are you selling me some kind of anti-aging cream? This whole paragraph sounds like a snake oil sales pitch, which...in a way it kind of is.
Not even close to true. In the modern era, it would be far cheaper to have a machine do the tasks associated with a housewife.
If you can't find a poor sap to be stuck with the woman's endless demands, society in general has to provide. That's the real reason.
Pair bonding is bullshit, evolutionary biology shows that women were never meant to be loyal.
You're right, but for the wrong reasons. Men's Rights will never succeed because women don't think we deserve them.
That's fine, but we pull women's protections away too, especially all the gender quotas, ESG funds and every other cheat they've used to get ahead of where their actual value would put them.
I've got most of that, but I don't want women anywhere near me. I have a life to preserve.
So, basically your plan is to do what the tradcucks always try to do, limit sexual outlets until your body pumps you full of enough chemicals to consider being stuck with a woman for the rest of your life.
Nope. That's them being shown their actual value.
Doesn't work, people suggested this before. Women's egos are massively out of any proportion and you can go down to 1s and still have the same problem. The whole culture of our society told them they are superior and they genuinely believe it.
You've misdiagnosed the problem as men going for women they can't have - women in general have a superiority belief that can't be shaken.
Bro, did you get this from ChatGPT?
Be honest - you are among friends...